W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 21:59:53 EST
Message-Id: <9702080259.AA00847@sqrex.sq.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Len said:
> Why not use independent link and context link?  They are 
> standard and a large segment of the SGML community recognizes them?

As long as they are not shortened to ilink and clink that's not too bad,
but there is no point in confusing 1000000 people because a community
of under 100 people who understand HyTime well would prefer those terms
with which they are the most comfortable :-)

I have just posted to suggest splitting the various concepts out
and having 3 names -- internal/external, implicit end, and participating.

An ilink can be internal or external, is not participating (since it is
not itself one of the link ends) and does not have an implicit end,
since all the ends are given in the linl.

A clink is internal, and has an implicit end document which is the one
that contains it.  It is not participating because it is not one of
its own link ends.

An HTML <A HREF=zzz> is internal, participates in the link, and has an
implicit end document (this one).

So I am saying call them all links, and give them attributes that
describe them in more detail when more detail is needed.

Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 22:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC